Criticism is the basis of science, not denial of it

Criticism is the basis of science, not denial of it

I’m not a climate change denier. I am a denier of these cornball solutions proposed to supposedly fix climate change. Why can’t I question bad ideas without being branded a denier/heretic?

I love science. It’s what got me into the field of Computer Science as my livelihood for the last 25 years. Empirical, data-backed thinking is what’s led us from the ignorance and superstitions of the past to understanding we have today. But science has a problem. Namely – that politicians, news agencies, and activists are running around claiming they are speaking for science.

To understand something, you must know what it is you’re seeking. Epistemologically, the object of science is to create physical descriptions of the natural world. Science seeks to describe how the world works via repeatable, quantifiable descriptions of natural processes. Science, however, has NOTHING to say about political policy or ascribing human value to what it finds. Political policy and human value are the proper objects of government and religion. Science can describe how an atom is split – it is politicians, engineers, and theologians that tell us if we should build a bomb or a power plant.

Therefore, it’s time to separate the peanut butter from the chocolate. If someone legitimately questions a political policy or posited social policy for an issue – they are NOT a science denier. They are a policy or activist questioner. I believe most people would agree politicians, and especially activists, should be questioned – regularly. This is a good thing, a necessary thing. Something democracy is founded on. Any activist or politician that resorts to silencing others or cannot defend their proposals by describing the solid scientific evidence and social policy reasoning behind them is a danger to democracy.

Example: We can 100% agree that gravity is real and buildings will fall down and kill people if built badly. A healthy scientific statement can absolutely withstand someone arguing if certain kind of concrete can withstand certain pressures and forces. You go out and try it. Reality decides who’s right. A healthy public policy of building codes based on those facts can withstand any scrutiny without resorting to someone being called a ‘gravity denier’ or ‘regulations denier’. It’s clear that building code has had serious flaws in the past – but that is a flaw of the policy. Science and gravity are just fine thank you.

Public policy and social policy do NOT speak scientifically nor for science. Policy should be BASED on science, but equating the two is wrong. Science and political/social policy fundamentally differ in what they are trying to do.

What we have now are policy makers and activists pretending they are scientists or pretending to speak for science when they are not. They are arguing for a particular political policy – not the science. Most activists, if you look, have very limited to no real knowledge of real science. Most are not scientists at all. Some have very dubious public and private credentials to even speak on these topics. Because they do not understand the science, they all too often resort to ad-hominem name calling more akin to radicals, cults, and zealots.

Sadly, the average person doesn’t usually understand the nuance that science and policy are different. I see all kinds of signs that say ‘Science is real’ and ‘We believe science’ here in Portland, while at the same time voting down fluoridating water – 5 times. It doesn’t help when politicians/activists saying they are the same. It’s beginning to undermine the notion of truth itself. This is why people are increasingly starting to say they don’t trust ‘science’ anymore. What they should say is they don’t (and shouldn’t) trust politicians and activists claiming to be scientists.

Maybe that’s why we are seeing an increase in political fanaticism that one would normally see in a cult. It attracts the same radicals – for the same reasons. (Aside: One might make a very interesting study that with the decline of religious following, people have turned to political/social policy as their new religious belief system. Which is why people’s political beliefs are often held with the same convictions as faith)

But there are currently growing problems in science itself. Sabine Hossenfelder is a widely spoken professor and scientist. I love her videos because she’s been revealing the seedy underbelly of how science has been getting done lately. She’s started to call BS on some widely held scientific trends that are (and have) turned out to be wrong. The news has also had some embarrassing scandals about grossly falsified data by famous and high-ranking university officials. The suspicion is that there is likely a lot more fraud yet to be uncovered based on a amount of blatantly obvious fraud already found. This isn’t new – the history of science is full of liars, cheats, and rivalries that would make a sailor blush.

Hossenfelder has been ruffling some big feathers. She claims her adherence to the standards of truth surrounding her calling foul on the failures of string theory (claims she was proven right about) cost her tenure. She also admits when she’s wrong. Honestly – I think she’s one of the few people really doing science by demanding high standards of proof.

More telling is the comment sections on her Youtube videos that are full of other scientists (and PHD’s) who are encountering the same things and sharing the same stories. Namely, that publishing results that align with current thinking is more important than truth (evidenced by major cases of data fraud being discovered in a shocking numbers of papers). She notes funding channels are controlled by just a few large figureheads in each field that determine what can be researched and often hold personal vendettas against anyone that questions their leadership or scientific direction. Science has become highly entrenched in ‘orthodox’ lines of thought and has their own inquisitions towards those that question the results. She describe how the funding mechanisms keeps perpetuating failed ideas even when decades of work shows no results – or even shows clear negative results.

As stated before public policy and social policy is NOT science. Policy should be BASED on science, but equating the two is wrong because they fundamentally differ in what they are trying to do. The other problem is that it appears we’re not actually DOING science by demanding high standards of repeatable proof.

Truth is being attacked on 2 fronts. Ironically by the very people claiming to be speaking for truth. It’s creating a crisis of faith in science as well as contributing to our increasingly divisive political climate that acts more like cults than democracy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.